"Thomas E. Spanjaard" <tgen@netphreax.net> wrote:
> KAME is basically over now. I doubt the participants still want to
> control the ALTQ API, especially since it has diverged quite a bit
> already on OpenBSD. It's good to write a single compatible API, but I
> think the biggest issue will be 'vendor' support from both camps (pf and
> ipf) for this new API. Otherwise, we'd have to maintain large patch sets
> for both imports. Communicating this with the other BSD projects won't
> be easy, as OpenBSD won't see any reason to change the API (assuming the
> 'new' API will be different from theirs), and FreeBSD, well, I don't
> know if they already have a solution for this issue, and how good it is
> if it exists.
Yes, KAME is over, but IIRC Kenjiro was thinking to project an API
implementation. So just talk about technical realization. Nothing more
about KAME.
Of course I agree that maintaining PF, ALTQ and their API patch sets is
too hard for NetBSD team. So would be great to talk with DragonFlyBSD
and FreeBSD projects about co-operation (because OpenBSD won't). Maybe
there is a possibility to do it and maintain it together.
Else, probably core@ should take a decision what to do. Of course, I
understand that situation is difficult, but I don't think that doing
nothing is a best solution.
Emm.. and where is solidarity between BSDs? ;)
--
Sincerly,
Mindaugas